Some difficulty was encountered in stating how Christians should be most conveniently and regularly formed into distinct congregations, so as best to obtain the benefit of pastoral instruction and superintendence. This the Assembly thought should be by the bounds of their dwellings, that is, by the parochial system; but the Independents opposed it, because it was contrary to their mode of "gathering churches," as it was termed. The proposition was however affirmed.

The subject of ruling elders was again resumed on the 3d of May, after having been laid aside for a considerable time. At first it was proposed that there should be at least one ruling elder in every congregation; but this was strenuously opposed by the Scottish commissioners, as in reality not forming a congregational eldership. It was at length decided, that in every congregation there should be, besides the minister, others to assist him in ruling, and some to take care for the poor; the number of each to be proportioned to the congregation.

Another topic then called forth a strenuous debate of five days' duration, namely, "That no single congregation, which may conveniently join together in an association, may assume unto itself all and sole power of ordination." Against this proposition the Independents mustered all their adherents, and put forth their whole, strength, because it condemned the central principle of their system. When it came to the vote, "it was affirmed by twenty-seven, and denied by nineteen; and this business," adds Lightfoot, "had been managed with the most heat and confusion of anything that had happened among us.' "* When the reasons to prove the general proposition were brought forward, another keen struggle took place, the first reason being carried by a majority of four votes, the second by a majority of five.t

The committee appointed to frame a summary of Church government, produced, instead of a report, a proposition to be debated, to the following effect:-"Concerning the ruling officers of particular congregations, they have power, 1, Authoritatively to call before them scandalous or suspected persons; 2. To admonish or rebuke authoritatively; 3. To keep from the sacrament authoritatively; Lightfoot, p. 262. Ibid., p. 267.

4. To excommunicate." The first topic was easily admitted, with a slight change on its terms; as was also the second ; but the third led to a protracted and very learned debate, having been recast into this form: "Authoritative suspension from the Lord's table of a person not yet cast out of the church, is agreeable to the Scripture." This proposition was opposed by Coleman, Herle, Case, and particularly by Lightfoot, who attempted to prove his view by the instance of Judas; and this led to a discussion on that point, in which scarcely any agreed with Lightfoot's opinion. The chief advocates of suspending scandalous persons were Young, Calamy, Gillespie, Rutherford, Reynolds, Burgess, and Dr. Hoyle. The Independents did not enter warmly into the discussion; and Goodwin, after endeavoring to represent it as differing little from admonition, concluded by saying, that his judgment fell in with the proposition, only he liked not the authoritative doing of it. It was at length decided in the affirmative, none voting against it but Lightfoot. But though the proposition had thus obtained the sanction of the Assembly, it was afterwards opposed by the Parliament, as, indeed, might have been expected, from the lax, notions entertained generally by men of the world on all such subjects.

The subject of excommunication was not again resumed till the 16th of October, when two passages of Scripturewere brought forward to prove it, namely, 1 Cor. v., and Matt. xviii. 17, 18. Both were admitted, and the proposition was further supported by this argument: "They that have authority to judge of and admit to the sacrament such as are to receive it, have authority to keep back such as shall be found unworthy." Against this Lightfoot alone voted in the negative; and that chiefly because he was not convinced that there is suspension or excommunication, as a power belonging to the Church,-an opinion which sprung from his Erastianism. Thus terminated the debates on that much contested point, on the 25th of October, so far as the Assembly was concerned: the opinions of the Parliament will fall under our observation when we come to the Erastian controversy.

Affairs had now attained so much maturity that a crisis Lightfoot, p. 268.

had become inevitable; for every point having been very fully debated between the Presbyterians and the Independents, they must either unite, or adopt some new course which should render union impossible. The Presbyterians had done everything in their power to meet the scruples of the Dissenting Brethren, both by allowing them to bring forward every objection which they could devise, and to debate till all were thoroughly exhausted, and also by appointing a committee of their own number to confer with them, in the hope of avoiding a final disruption. But when the Dissenting Brethren could not persuade the Assembly to adopt their views in preference to its own, they renewed their intrigues with the Independents in the army, by whose influence they knew they would be supported. The state of political affairs was favorable to their schemes. Soon after the battle of Marston, in which the king's army sustained such a severe defeat, proposals were made for a treaty of peace, of which the Presbyteri ans in the Parliament were cordially desirous, if it could be obtained on terms sufficient to secure the liberties of the kingdom. But this was by no means what the Independents in both Parliament and army desired, consequently the scene of contest was removed from the tented field to the legislative assemblies, and this brought Oliver Cromwell to the House of Commons. This deep-minded and far-foreseeing man perceived clearly that were a peace concluded, and Church government established, his ambitious prospects must be completely destroyed; and with his usual sagacity, anticipating the unyielding obstinacy of the king, which would render any satisfactory pacific arrangement impossible, he set himself chiefly to prevent the settlement of the Church by means of a Presbyterian establishment. "This day" (13th September), says Baillie, "Cromwell has obtained an order of the House of Commons to refer to the committee of both kingdoms the accommodation or toleration of the Independents, a high and unexpected order." In another passage, referring to the same event, Baillie adds, that “this was done without the least advertisement to any of us or of the Assembly." "This has much affected us. These men have retarded the Assembly these long twelve (2 months. This is the fruit of their disservice, to obtain

really an act of Parliament for their toleration, before we have got anything for Presbytery either in Assembly or Parliament."*

The order from the House of Commons was produced in the Assembly on the 16th of September, in the following terms:-"That the committee of Lords and Commons appointed to treat with the commissioners of Scotland, and the committee of the Assembly, do take into consideration. the differences of the opinions of the members of the Assembly in point of Church government, and to endeavor an union if it be possible. And in case that cannot be done, to endeavor the finding out some way how far tender con-、、 sciences, who cannot in all things submit to the same rule which shall be established, may be borne with according to the Word, and as may stand with the public peace; that so the proceedings of the Assembly may not be so much retarded." In compliance with this order, the committee met on the 20th of September, and appointed a sub-committee, consisting of Dr. Temple, Messrs. Marshall, Herle, Vines, Goodwin, and Nye, to consider of the differences of opinion in the Assembly, in point of Church government, and to report to the Grand Committee. These divines accordingly formed what was called the sub-committee of agreements; and prepared several propositions concerning the government of particular congregations, ordination, &c., which they laid before the Grand Committee, on the 11th of October. Having some additional propositions to frame respecting the jurisdiction of Presbyteries and Synods, they were adjourned, and appointed to meet again on the 15th of October, and then to produce a complete report. When they met on the day appointed, their additional propositions were read; but when it was proposed to take them into consideration, it was objected that it was not consistent with strict propriety to discuss objections against a proposed rule of Church government till that rule itself should have been completed by the Assembly and the House of Parliament. The proceedings of this Committee of Accommodation were therefore suspended by the House of Commons till their further pleasure, no real progress towards an agreement having been made.

* Baillie, vol. ii. pp. 226, 230.

† Papers for Accommodation, p. 1.

Without relating minutely the proceedings of this committee, it may be enough to state, that in what was termed the preface of their report, they expressed their confidence that they would jointly agree in one Confession of Faith, and in one Directory of Public Worship, their only difference being in points of Church government. They framed nine propositions respecting the power of individual congregations, in six of which they were all agreed, with a slight and unimportant explanation. The points of the other three in which the Independents could not quite agree with the Presbyterians, respected the power of congregations to excommunicate members, or ordain elders by sole authority of the people, seeking merely the advice of neighboring ministers, but not subject to the control of a presbytery; and the parochial system, which the Independents opposed, as contrary to their theory of gathering churches out of other churches. To this system of the Independents the Presbyterians would not consent, as giving countenance to schism, and perpetuating strife and jealousy among both ministers and people. With regard to the jurisdiction of - Presbyteries and Synods, the Independents could consent to nothing more than the advice of neighboring ministers, to be respected, but not authoritative further than admonition; and in case of the offending congregation not submitting, withdrawing from it, and denying Church communion and fellowship, but without any actual power within the range of any particular congregation over any offending member, though the congregation itself might be admonished for not putting forth its own power to reform its own members. It is plain that the essential difference between the two parties remained undiminished; the Independents continued to maintain the sole power of congregations to exercise Church government, and to demand the privilege of gathering churches, or congregations, out of the congregations of the Presbyterians, with whom, nevertheless, they could continue to hold occasional communion. These points the Presbyterians regarded as utterly subversive of their whole system; and though they would have tolerated in practice, they could not consent to give it an avowed and legal sanction, regarding it as nationally impolitic, in a religious point of view sinful, and with regard to the Covenant, a violation of their oath, to sanction and